116 G. Claridge Druce. 
1401. Senecio vulgaris L. forma crepiformis. The Blakeney 
plant with conical receptacles, which I thought might be due to a 
fall, I find are really owing to the attack of a small larva. 
1420. Arctium nemorosum Lej. This name as Dalla Torre 
and Sarntheim (Fl. Tirol, 595, 1912) show, must be replaced by that 
of A. macrospermum (Wallr.) Dalla Torre and Sarntheim. 
1657. Sonchus oleraceus L. var. albescens Neum. Galway, 
Ostenfeld, see p. 59, a first British reference. 
1695. Erica Tetralix L. A plant which was not uncommon at 
the Lizard plant with small corollas may be distinguished as 
f. parviflora. 
1696. E. Mackayi x Tetralix —= x E. Praegeri Ostenf. in 
New Phyt., 120, 1912. This has been in cultivation in the Edin- 
burgh Bot. Gardens for some time (although not I believe distin- 
guished from E. Mackayi), the roots coming from Craigga More. 
There seem to be good reasons for accepting Dr. Ostenfeld’s 
suggested name and origin of this plant. 
1931. Euphrasia stricta Host. Dog’s Bay, Galway. 
1933. E. brevipila Burn. and Grem. Silverdale, Lancash. ; 
Westmoreland; Dunkeld, E. Perth ; Lawers, Mid-Perth; Trosachs, 
W. Perth; Ballyvaghan, Co. Clare; Killarney, Kerry; New 
Forest, S. Hants. 
E. fennica Kihlm. This plant I collected some years ago on 
Exmoor, Somerset, but saw it again last year at Clifden, Co. 
Galway. Professor R. von Wettstein agrees to the determi- 
nation, which was suggested by Professor Lindman. New to 
Britain. 
1948. Bartsia Odontites Huds., var. verna (Reichb.) Dog’s 
Bay, Co. Galway, 1.P.E. 
1960. Melampyrum pratense L. var. hians Druce in Naturalist, 
X, (1884-5), 35. 
Dr. Ostenfeld (l.c. 62) suggests that this plant is a form of M. 
vulgatum Pers., but apart from the question of splitting M. pratense 
into two species, I srtongly demur to this well-marked plant being 
made a forma. If the differences justify two species being made 
out of Erigeron alpinus, surely the differences, not only 
floristic but of habitat, which exist between /iians and the type, 
establish its claims at least to varietal distinction; indeed both 
Professors Schröter and Graebner thought it was a good sub- 
species. Through the kindness of the former botanist, who sent 
specimens to the well-known specialist on this group, Dr. Ronniger, 
the fact has been ascertained that he considers it to be identical 
with the sub-species M. paradoxum which he has described in 
Schinz and Keller FI. der Schweiz, 489, 1909. 
With regard to M. vulgatum Persoon, this was published in 
the Synopsis, ti, 151, 1807, as “5. vulgatum (pratense L) flor secundis 
lateralibus, cor. clausis, cal. subcolorati laciniis adscendentibus, caul. 
ramosissimo. Engl. Bot. t. 113. M. sylvaticum Huds, Ray. Hab. in 
sylvaticis frequens. Cor. tubus albicans. Anth. subcoalitz.” Now it 
appears evident to me that this is a still-born name, being simply 
synonymous with M. pratense, which the author quotes. The next 
species is “ 6. alpestre (sylvaticum L.)” where a similar unnecessary 
and invalid change has been made by Persoon. who adds “Obs. 
Ob nomina trivialia incongrua, hac due species ut plurimum com- 
